BERLIN — Chancellor Friedrich Merz is mounting an unusually assertive effort to project German leadership at the heart of the EU, positioning himself as the defender not only of Ukraine but, by his own account, of Europe as a whole. This represents a stark shift in Germany’s approach to world affairs. Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. Rather, Germany tended to hang back and avoid undue risk. Germans even coined a slang verb — “to Merkel,” or Merkeln — to connote dithering. Merz has taken a far more active stance inside the EU — assuming a role more traditionally played by France’s now weakened President Emmanuel Macron. He has placed himself as Europe’s most visible advocate of a risk-laden EU plan to replenish Ukraine’s war chest with a €210 billion loan backed by Russian frozen assets. Earlier this month he visited Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, who has rejected the plan, along with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in an effort to convince the Belgian to drop his opposition. “When it comes to managing European issues, Merz is truly the polar opposite of Merkel,” an Italian diplomat said of that effort. Outside of EU affairs, the Trump administration’s wavering on military aid for Ukraine and the erosion of the transatlantic alliance have compelled Merz to push Germany beyond long familiar limits when it comes to foreign policy. Given this seismic realignment, Merz has repeatedly vowed that Germany will play a “leading role” internationally. “Ukraine’s fate is the fate of all of Europe,” Merz said on Monday alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “And in this respect, it is a key task, and I have taken it upon myself to closely support Ukraine in the negotiations that are currently taking place here in Berlin.” IS EUROPE CAPABLE OF ‘STANDING TOGETHER?’ Merz’s attempt to make good on the promise to lead has been on full display this week. While praising Donald Trump for pressing for a peace deal, the chancellor has in many ways set himself in direct opposition to the U.S. president, working to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose an unfavorable deal. The Trump administration has also opposed the EU proposal on Russia’s frozen reserves, hoping instead to turn a profit on those assets as part of a potential peace agreement. “Washington is now exerting tremendous pressure here, which is why it is also a question of asserting ourselves against Washington,” Norbert Röttgen, a senior German lawmaker belonging to Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO.  Ahead of a key meeting of European leaders on Thursday, Merz is depicting the looming decision on whether to leverage frozen Russian central bank assets in the EU as a test of whether Europe can still stand up for itself. “Let us not deceive ourselves. If we do not succeed in this, the European Union’s ability to act will be severely damaged for years, if not for a longer period,” Merz said on Monday. “And we will show the world that, at such a crucial moment in our history, we are incapable of standing together and acting to defend our own political order on this European continent.”  Friedrich Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. | Maja Hitij/Getty Images In a reflection of his government’s new assertiveness, Merz has made Berlin a nexus of diplomacy over a potential peace deal. On Sunday and Monday he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. On Monday evening, many of Europe’s most powerful leaders converged over dinner in Berlin to discuss the outlines of a possible deal. “Berlin is now at the center of very important diplomatic talks and decisions,” Zelenskyy said Monday. “These talks are always complex, never easy, but they were very productive.” Merz, too, standing alongside the Ukrainian leader, appeared to play up the role Germany has assumed in recent negotiations. “We have seen great diplomatic momentum — perhaps the greatest since the start of the war,” he said. “We now have the chance for a genuine peace process for Ukraine. This seedling is still small, but the opportunity is real.” MERZ OVERSTEPS But Merz’s efforts to put Germany forward as a key EU leader on Ukraine and other matters, from defense to trade, are also replete with risk. European leaders have largely welcomed Merz’s willingness to take on a greater leadership role — particularly the chancellor’s decision, even before he took office, to unlock hundreds of billions of euros in borrowing to bolster Germany’s military. But as Europe’s biggest economy, Germany’s exercise of power within a union of 27 countries requires a delicate balancing act, and at times of late, Merz has appeared to overstep. After the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, which depicted the EU as a transnational body that “undermines political liberty and sovereignty,” Merz condemned the document as “unacceptable.” At the same time he offered Trump a workaround that seemed to undermine the EU even more: “If you can’t get on board with Europe, then at least make Germany your partner.” Merz has tried to assert German interests in EU trade negotiations as well as on the issue of the EU’s proposed combustion engine ban, successfully watering it down. However, the greater risk for Merz lies in whether his latest efforts succeed or fail. By depicting European leaders’ looming decisions on Russian assets this week as a make-or-break moment for the EU and for Ukraine, Merz may be setting himself up for embarrassment given Belgian and Italian opposition to the plan. “It is a very active role that [Merz] is playing,” Röttgen told POLITICO. “Not because there is great competition for a leadership role, but because, in my view, Germany is currently best suited to take this initiative.” “This also has something to do with the fiscal possibilities that exist in Germany. We are by far the biggest supporter of Ukraine at the moment. But this should not take the form of national support, but rather European support. It needs to be organized, and in my view, that is a task for Merz.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report from Brussels.

President Donald Trump filed suit Monday against the British Broadcasting Company, seeking more than $5 billion from the venerable news outlet over what he contends was deliberately misleading editing of a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021, as the Capitol riot was getting underway. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, complains that the BBC “maliciously” strung together two comments Trump made more than 54 minutes apart in order to convey the impression that he’d urged his supporters to engage in violence as electoral votes were set to be tabulated by Congress. “It would have been impossible for BBC’s journalists and producers to splice together two distinct parts of the Speech from nearly 55 minutes apart unless they were acting intentionally,” the suit claims. “Such a dramatic distortion could never have occurred by accident.” The BBC apologized to Trump last month over the splicing, but argued that it did not amount to the basis for a defamation suit. A network spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The new suit is Trump’s latest bid to extract a large payout from news organizations he has routinely attacked. One recent suit against CNN — demanding damages from the network over its use of the term “big lie” to describe Trump’s false claims of fraud in the 2020 election — was tossed by a federal appeals court. Trump has also, however, reached multimillion-dollar settlements with ABC and CBS in lawsuits he brought accusing them of false reporting or deceptive editing. Trump’s suits against The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal remain pending. Trump is facing a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. stemming from his Jan. 6 speech, with lawmakers and police officers injured that day alleging that his remarks incited the violent riot at the Capitol that threatened the transfer of presidential power. The judge presiding over that case found that despite Trump’s claim to have encouraged supporters to march “peacefully” to the Capitol, many had already departed his rally by the time he issued the call for order, and his speech was so full of incendiary rhetoric that his belated mention of “peaceful” behavior may not have been sufficient to calm the crowd’s fury. Legal experts have said they expect the BBC to challenge the federal court’s jurisdiction over the case, particularly in light of the network’s claim that the documentary did not air in the U.S. and the digital version was not available to U.S. audiences. Trump’s suit seeks to counter that argument by noting that at least two websites published instructions about how to watch the documentary in the U.S. via a virtual private network or VPN, although one of those posts came in recent months. Trump’s attorneys also contend that the BBC shot many of the scenes in Florida, including in and around Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. The complaint also notes that the BBC maintains an office in Coral Gables, just south of Miami.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, giving the U.S. government additional legal firepower in its efforts to combat illegal trafficking of the synthetic drug. The executive order cites the lethality of the drug, which kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, and the fact that transnational criminal groups the Trump administration has designated as foreign terrorist organizations use the sale of fentanyl to fund activities that undermine U.S. national security. Speaking in the Oval Office as he signed the order, the president said the amount of drugs coming into the U.S. by sea has decreased by 94 percent (most drugs, including fentanyl, enter the U.S. via land ports of entry). Trump added that drug flows are “a direct military threat to the United States of America.” The administration has focused considerable resources on combating fentanyl as part of its efforts to secure the U.S. border with Mexico. Top administration officials have argued that Trump’s strict immigration limits and border security measures have led to a drop in domestic consumption of fentanyl. “With a secure border, lives are being saved every day, sex trafficking has plummeted, fentanyl has plummeted,” White House border czar Tom Homan said Monday. While classifying a narcotic as a WMD is a nearly unprecedented presidential action, there has been public debate about characterizing fentanyl that way before. The Biden administration had previously faced pressure from a bipartisan contingent of attorneys general to classify fentanyl as a WMD. And fentanyl, even in tiny quantities, is potent enough to kill large numbers of people very quickly through overdoses. The synthetic drug, which has some limited legal pharmacological uses, mostly comes to the United States via Mexico, where drug cartels manufacture fentanyl using “precursor chemicals” imported from China. Fentanyl production is also booming in the Golden Triangle region of southeast Asia, which includes the countries of Laos, Myanmar and Thailand. Fentanyl can be easily made in makeshift labs, adding to the challenge authorities have faced in eradicating production within their borders. The administration, meanwhile, has accused cartels operating in Venezuela of trafficking fentanyl into the United States as a justification for the use of lethal force against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea. Venezuela, while seen as a hub for cocaine trafficking, is not viewed as a major contributor to global fentanyl trafficking. The timing of the designation is striking, as speculation mounts that the U.S. will carry out land strikes against alleged drug trafficking targets on Venezuelan soil as part of its pressure campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction would give the U.S. additional legal justification to use military force against Venezuela. Claims that Iraq still possessed WMDs were used as a legal justification for the invasion of the Middle Eastern country and the overthrow of its then-leader Saddam Hussein under the George W. Bush administration. The U.S. has also previously floated military strikes against Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, and it has been expected that the U.S. will eventually turn its focus away from Venezuela toward threats from groups in those countries.

LONDON — Green Party leader Zack Polanski is open to forming a discrete non-aggression pact with Labour in order to stop right-winger Nigel Farage from ever entering Downing Street, according to two senior Green officials. Polanski, the leader of the “eco-populist” outfit that is helping squeeze the incumbent Labour government’s progressive vote, has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. But the recently elected party chief, who has overseen a big boost to Green polling with his punchy defenses of leftist causes on social media and television, has told allies he “couldn’t live with myself” if he contributed to Farage’s victory, according to a second senior Green official, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak about internal thinking. Such a move would stop short of a formal Green-Labour deal, instead tapping into tactical voting. Green officials are discussing the prospect of informal, local prioritizations of resources so the best-placed progressive challenger can win, as seen in elections past with Labour and the centrist Liberal Democrats. At the same time, Green advisers are keen to lean into the deep divisions within Labour about whether Starmer should be replaced with another leader to prevent electoral oblivion. Starmer appears deeply unpopular with Green supporters. One YouGov study has him rated just as unfavorably as Conservative chief Badenoch with backers of Polanski’s party. The first Green official argued there is “no advantage in working electorally with Labour under Starmer.” Instead, they’re eyeing up — even expecting — a change in Labour leadership. Polanski has talked up Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Labour mayor who is seen as one potential challenger to Starmer.  LABOUR: WE ARE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THAT As the party in power, Labour — which has ramped up its attacks on the Greens in recent weeks — is keen to tamp down talk of working together. Asked about the Greens, a senior U.K. government adviser said: “We are not even thinking about that. We need to focus on being a viable government.”  They expect Polanski’s polling to plummet once there’s more scrutiny of his politics, including his criticism of NATO, as well as his more colorful comments. Back in 2013, as a hypnotherapist, Polanski suggested to a reporter he could enlarge breasts with his mind. “The hypnotist thing goes down in focus groups like a bucket of cold sick,” the government adviser added. There’s skepticism that a non-aggression deal could work anyway, not least because the Greens will be vying for the kind of urban heartlands Labour can’t afford to back down from. Neither party “has an incentive to go soft on one another,” as a result, Luke Tryl, a director at the More in Common think tank, said. “I really doubt they’re going to forgo taking more seats off us in London or Bristol in the greater interest of the left,” said a Labour MP with a keen eye on the polling. “They’re trying to replace us — they’re not trying to be our little friends.” The Labour MP instead argued that voters typically make their minds up in the lead-up to elections as to how best to stop a certain outcome, whether that’s due to past polling or activities on the ground. Zack Polanski has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Nigel Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. | Lesley Martin/Getty Images That can well work against Labour, as seen in the Caerphilly by-election in October. The constituency of the devolved Welsh administration had been Labour since its inception in 1999 — but no more. Voters determined to stop Farage decided it was the center-left Welsh nationalists of Plaid Cymru that represented the best party to coalesce around. Reform’s success was thwarted — but Labour’s vote plummeted in what were once party heartlands.  “There’s no doubt the Greens risk doing to Labour what Farage did to the Conservatives,” said Tryl of More in Common, who pointed out that the Greens may not even win many seats as a result of the fracturing (party officials internally speak of winning only 50 MPs as being a huge ask).   “Labour’s hope instead will have to be that enough disgruntled progressives hold their nose and opt for PM Starmer over the threat of PM Farage.” Labour and the Greens are not the only parties dealing with talk of a pact, despite a likely four-year wait for Britain’s next general election. Ever since 1918, it’s been either the Conservatives or Labour who’ve formed the British government, with Westminster’s first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system across 650 constituencies meaning new parties rarely get a look in. But the general election in July last year suggested this could be coming apart. Farage has already been forced to deny a report that he views an electoral deal with establishment Conservatives as the “inevitable” route to power. His stated aim is to replace the right-wing party entirely. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch is publicly pretty firm that she won’t buddy up with Reform either. “I am the custodian of an institution that has existed for nigh on 200 years,” she said in February. “I can’t just treat it like it’s a toy and have pacts and mergers.” Robert Jenrick, the right-winger who’s widely tipped as her successor, has been more circumspect, however. That appears to be focusing minds on the left. Farage may be polling the highest — but there’s still a significant portion of the public horrified by the prospect of him entering No.10. A YouGov study on tactical voting suggested that Labour would be able to count on a boost in support from Liberal Democrat and Green voters to stave off the threat of Farage. Outwardly, Polanski is a vocal critic of Labour under Starmer and wants to usurp the party as the main vehicle for left-wing politics. The Green leader is aiming to win over not just progressives, but also disenchanted Reform-leaning voters, with his support for wider public ownership, higher taxes on the wealthy, and opposition to controversial measures like scaling back jury trials and introducing mandatory digital IDs. But privately, Polanski is more open to doing deals because in his mind, “at the general election, stopping Farage is the most important objective,” as the first senior Green adviser put it. “We expect to be the main challengers to Reform, but of course we are open to discussing what options exist to help in that central mission of stopping Farage,” they said.

BERLIN — European leaders welcomed “significant progress” in talks on a potential peace deal on Monday after nearly four years of full-scale war in Ukraine, for the first time outlining how security guarantees could prevent Vladimir Putin from invading again.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave an upbeat assessment of a dramatic new offer from American officials to provide NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine. The proposals look “pretty good,” Zelenskyy said at the end of two days of talks with Donald Trump’s negotiators and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin.  But the Ukraine president cautioned that the plans were only a “first draft,” with major questions remaining unresolved. For example, there was still no deal on what should happen to contested territory in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, much of which is occupied by Russian troops. And there’s no indication that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin will agree to any of it. Merz, however, welcomed what he called the “remarkable” legal and “material” security guarantees that American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, had proposed.  “For the first time since 2022, a ceasefire is conceivable,” Merz said at a press conference with Zelenskyy. “It is now entirely up to Russia whether a ceasefire can be achieved by Christmas.”  The emergence of an outline security guarantee marks a potentially critical step forward in the negotiations. Ukraine has consistently said it cannot consider any solution to the question of what happens to territories occupied by Russian troops until it receives a security package that would deter Putin from invading again.  Putin, meanwhile, has refused to countenance Ukraine joining NATO, and earlier this year Trump said American forces would not have a role in any peacekeeping mission.  However, recent days have seen a steady improvement in the mood among negotiators. “This is a truly far-reaching and substantial agreement, which we have not had before, namely that both Europe and the U.S. are jointly prepared — and President Zelenskyy has referred to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty — to give similar security guarantees to Ukraine,” Merz said. Article 5 is the cornerstone of the alliance’s collective defense: It states that an attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all. “In my view, this is a really big step forward. And, as I said, the American side has also committed itself politically and, in perspective, legally to do this,” Merz added. Zelenskyy also, for the first time, suggested a solution could be in sight. “Before we take any steps on the battlefield, we need to see very clearly what security guarantees are in place,” he said. “It is important that the U.S. is considering Article-5-like guarantees. There is progress there.” In a subsequent joint statement the leaders of Denmark, Finland, France, the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Norway joined Merz in welcoming the “significant progress” in the talks. The statement was also signed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, president of the European Council, who joined the national leaders for a dinner discussion with Zelenskyy in Berlin.  Their statement also laid out more detail on what the new peace plan might include, suggesting that “the US” had “committed” alongside European leaders to guarantee the future security of Ukraine and to foster its economic recovery. This, the leaders’ statement said, would include commitments to support Ukraine’s army to maintain a “peacetime” strength of 800,000 to be able to “deter” and “defend.”  Peace would be enforced in part by a European-led “multinational force Ukraine” made up of contributions from willing nations and “supported by the U.S.” This force would secure Ukraine’s skies, support security at sea, and build up the Ukrainian armed forces, “including through operating in Ukraine.” The statement is not clear on exactly what role the U.S. would play in supporting this force.  Separately, the U.S. would be responsible for a mechanism to monitor the ceasefire and provide early warning of any future attack. There would also be a legally binding commitment to take measures to restore peace if Russia attacks again, potentially including “armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance.” Further points in the proposal include joint efforts to reconstruct Ukraine and invest in its future prosperity, and continuing Ukraine’s pathway toward joining the EU.  On the matter of ceding territory, the European leaders said it would be for Zelenskyy to decide —if necessary by consulting the Ukrainian people.  The developments represent significant movement after weeks of stalemate. But there were suggestions from the American side that their offer may be time-limited, as the White House seeks to push the warring sides toward a peace deal by Christmas.  “The basis of that agreement is basically to have really, really strong guarantees, Article 5-like,” a senior U.S. official said. “Those guarantees will not be on the table forever. Those guarantees are on the table right now if there’s a conclusion that’s reached in a good way.” Hans von der Burchard, Victor Jack, Nicholas Vinocur and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.  

BRUSSELS — EU leaders meeting this week will remain locked in talks until they find a solution to Ukraine’s funding crisis, Cyprus said, insisting the issue won’t be kicked to Jan. 1 when it takes over the EU’s legislative agenda. Cypriot Deputy EU Minister Marilena Raouna told POLITICO on Monday that leaders have “a critical decision to make at the upcoming European Council,” which begins Thursday. Discussions over how to ensure Kyiv does not run out of money by the middle of next year have been “challenging,” she went on, but “there is a readiness by all to stay in Brussels until we are able to have a decision on this issue of financing.” European officials have repeatedly warned Thursday’s negotiations could take hours, or even days, to produce a result and may run into the weekend despite pressures on leaders’ schedules. The alternative, officials say, is Ukraine running out of money — which will not be allowed to happen. The EU is working to agree on a plan to use frozen Russian assets to underwrite a €210 billion loan to support Kyiv’s state budget and help repair the damage done by Russia’s full-scale invasion. However, Belgium — which hosts the bulk of the funds — has been joined by Italy, Malta and Bulgaria in raising legal questions over the proposals, which are already opposed on principle by Kremlin-friendly countries Hungary and Slovakia. “A number of member states have said we need to ensure there is legal certainty; I think safeguards are being put in place in this regard. And that will pave the way, I hope, for a decision,” said Raouna. “I think we need to exhaust all possibilities … We also need to be aware of what message it would send if we don’t reach a decision.” Talks between ambassadors on the technical framework behind the move were canceled on Sunday and will run late into the night on Monday instead, ahead of a summit of leaders under the auspices of the European Council on Thursday. Four diplomats told POLITICO they remain convinced the plan is workable and no alternative exists given capitals’ opposition to borrowing the money directly. Despite that, there are growing concerns that failing to consider other options would mean major delays if the assets plan is rejected. “I think we are on the right path. I am cautiously optimistic that we will be able to deliver at the European Council,” Raouna said. Cyprus takes over the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union from the beginning of next year, giving one of the smallest countries in the bloc an influential role overseeing diplomatic talks. Along with Ireland, it is one of two militarily neutral countries to take on the role in 2026.

LONDON — The U.K. government is “dragging its heels” on whether to classify China as a major threat to Britain’s national security, the parliament’s intelligence watchdog warned on Monday. Lawmakers on the Intelligence and Security Committee — which has access to classified briefings as part of its work overseeing Britain’s intelligence services — said they are “concerned” by apparent inaction over whether to designate Beijing as a top-level threat when it comes to influencing Britain. Ministers have been under pressure to put China on the “enhanced tier” of Britain’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme — a tool to protect the economy and society from covert hostile activity. Both Iran and Russia have been placed on the top tier, which adds a new layer of restrictions and accountability to their activities in Britain. The government has so far resisted calls to add China to that list, even though Beijing has been accused of conducting state-threat activities in the U.K. such as industrial espionage, cyber-attacks and spying on politicians.  In its annual report the Committee said British intelligence agency MI5 had previously told them that measures like the registration scheme would “have proportionately more effect against … Chinese activity.” The Committee said “hostile activity by Russian, Iranian and Chinese state-linked actors is multi-faceted and complex,” adding that the threat of “state-sponsored assassination, attacks and abductions” of perceived dissidents has “remained at a higher level than we have seen in previous years.”  It added that while there are “a number of difficult trade-offs involved” when dealing with Beijing, it has “previously found that the Government has been reluctant to prioritise security considerations when it comes to China.” “The Government should swiftly come to a decision on whether to add China to the Enhanced Tier of the [Foreign Influence Registration Scheme],” the Committee said, demanding that it be provided a “full account” to “ensure that security concerns have not been overlooked in favour of economic considerations.” The pressure comes as U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to visit China in January — the first British leader to visit the country since Theresa May in 2018.  A government spokesperson said: “National security is the first duty of this government. We value the [Intelligence and Security Committee]’s independent oversight and the thoroughness of their scrutiny. “This report underscores the vital, complex work our agencies undertake daily to protect the UK. “This Government is taking a consistent, long term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in UK and global interests. We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must.”

BRUSSELS — When it comes to support for Ukraine, a split has emerged between the European Union and its English-speaking allies. In France and Germany, the EU’s two biggest democracies, new polling shows that more respondents want their governments to scale back financial aid to Kyiv than to increase it or keep it the same. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, meanwhile, respondents tilt the other way and favor maintaining material support, according to The POLITICO Poll, which surveyed more than 10,000 people across the five countries earlier this month. The findings land as European leaders prepare to meet in Brussels on Thursday for a high-stakes summit where providing financial support to Ukraine is expected to dominate the agenda. They also come as Washington seeks to mediate a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — with German leader Friedrich Merz taking the lead among European nations on negotiating in Kyiv’s favor. Across all five countries, the most frequently cited reason for supporting continued aid to Ukraine was the belief that nations should not be allowed to seize territory by force. The most frequently cited argument against additional assistance was concerns about the cost and the pressure on the national economy.  “Much of our research has shown that the public in Europe feels the current era demands policy trade-offs, and financial support for Ukraine is no exception,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London that carried out the survey for POLITICO.  “In a time where public finances are seen as finite resources, people’s interests are increasingly domestic,” he added.  WESTERN DIVIDE Germans were the most reluctant to ramp up financial assistance, with nearly half of respondents (45 percent) in favor of cutting financial aid to Kyiv while only 20 percent wanted to increase it. In France 37 percent wanted to give less and 24 percent preferred giving more. In contrast to the growing opposition to Ukrainian aid from Europe, support remains strikingly firm in North America. In the U.S., President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism toward Kyiv’s chances of defeating Moscow and has sent interlocutors to bargain with the Russians for peace. And yet the U.S. had the largest share of respondents (37 percent) in favor of increasing financial support, with Canada just behind at 35 percent. Support for Ukraine was driven primarily by those who backed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 election in the U.S. Some 29 percent of Harris voters said one of the top three reasons the U.S. should support Ukraine was to protect democracy, compared with 17 percent of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. “The partisan split in the U.S. is now quite extreme,” Wride said. In Germany and France, opposition to assistance was especially pronounced among supporters of far-right parties — such as the Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally — while centrists were less skeptical. “How Ukraine financing plays out in Germany in particular, as a number of European governments face populist challenges, should be a particular warning sign to other leaders,” Wride said. REFUGEE FATIGUE Support for military assistance tracked a similar divide. Nearly 40 percent of respondents in the U.S., U.K. and Canada backed higher levels of military aid, with about 20 percent opposed. In Germany 26 percent supported increased military aid to Ukraine while 39 percent opposed it. In France opinions were evenly split, with 31 percent favoring an increase and 30 percent favoring cuts. Germany was also the only country where a majority of respondents said their government should accept fewer Ukrainians displaced by the war.  In a country that has taken in more than a million Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, 50 percent of Germans said Berlin should admit fewer.  Half of respondents also said Germany should reduce support for Ukrainians already settled in the country — a sign that public fatigue is extending beyond weapons and budgets to the broader social and political pressures of the conflict. The softer support for Ukraine in France and Germany does not appear to reflect warmer feelings toward Moscow, however. Voters in all five countries backed sanctions against Russia, suggesting that even where publics want to pare back aid they remain broadly aligned around punishing the aggressor and limiting Russia’s ability to finance the war. This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Dec. 5 to Dec. 9 and surveyed 10,510 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Germany. The results for each country were weighted to be representative in terms of age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com.

LONDON — On the face of it, the new MI6 chief’s first speech featured many of the same villains and heroes as those of her predecessors. But in her first public outing Monday, Blaise Metreweli, the first female head of the U.K.’s foreign intelligence service, sent a strong signal that she intends to put her own stamp on the role – as she highlighted a wave of inter-connected threats to western democracies. Speaking at MI6’s HQ in London, Metreweli, who took over from Richard Moore in October, highlighted a confluence of geo-political and technological disruptions, warning “the frontline is everywhere” and adding “we are now operating in a space between peace and war.” In a speech shot through with references to a shifting transatlantic order and the growth of disinformation, Metreweli made noticeably scant  reference to the historically close relationship with the U.S. in intelligence gathering — the mainstay of the U.K.’s intelligence compact for decades. Instead, she highlighted that a “new bloc and identities are forming and alliances reshaping.” That will be widely seen to reflect an official acknowledgement that the second Donald Trump administration has necessitated a shift in the security services towards cultivating more multilateral relationships. By comparison with a lengthy passage on the seriousness of the Russia threat to Britain, China got away only with a light mention of its cyber attack tendencies towards the U.K. — and was referred to more flatteringly as “a country where a central transformation  is  taking place this century.” Westminster hawks will note that Metreweli — who grew up in Hong Kong and  so knows the Chinese system close-up — walked gingerly around the risk of conflict in the  South China Sea and Beijing’s espionage activities targeting British politicians – and even its royals. In a carefully-placed line, she reflected that she was  “going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour.” Moore, her predecessor, was known for that approach, which delighted those who enjoyed a plain-speaking MI6 boss giving pithy analysis of global tensions and their fallout, but frustrated some in the Foreign Office who believed the affable Moore could be too unguarded in his comments on geo-politics. The implicit suggestion from the new chief was that China needs to be handled differently to the forthright engagement with “aggressive, expansionist and revisionist” Russia. The reasons may well lie in the aftermath of a bruising argument within Whitehall about how to handle the recent case of two Britons who were arrested for spying for China, and with a growth-boosting visit to Beijing by the prime minister scheduled for 2026. Sources in the service suggest the aim of the China strategy is to avoid confrontation, the better to further intelligence-gathering and have a more productive economic relationship with Beijing. More hardline interpreters of the Secret Intelligence Service will raise eyebrows at her suggestion that the “convening power” of the service would enable it to “ defuse tensions.” But there was no doubt about Metreweli’s deep concern at the impacts of social-media disinformation and distortion, in a framing which seemed just as worried about U.S. tech titans as conventional state-run threats:  “We are being contested from battlefield to boardroom — and even our brains — as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other.” Declaring that “some  algorithms become as powerful as states,” seemed to tilt at outfits like Elon Musk’s X and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta-owned Facebook. Metreweli warned that “hyper personalized tools could become a new vector for conflict and control,” pushing their effects on societies and individuals  in “minutes not months – my service must operate in this new context too.” The new boss used the possessive pronoun, talking about “my service” in her speech several times – another sign that she intends to put a distinctive mark of the job, now that she has, at the age of just 48,  inherited the famous green-ink pen in which the head of the service signs correspondence.  Metreweli is experienced operator in war zones including Iraq who spent a secondment with MI5, the domestic intelligence service, and won the job in large part because of her experience in the top job via MI6’s science and technology “Q”  Branch. She clearly wants to expedite changes in the service – saying agents must be as fluent in computer coding as foreign languages. She is also expected to try and address a tendency in the service to harvest information, without a clear focus on the action that should follow – the product of a glut of intelligence gathered via digital means and AI. She  was keen to stress that the human factor is at the heart of it all — an attempt at reassurance for spies and analysts wondering if they might be replaced by AI agents as the job of gathering intelligence in the era of facial recognition and biometrics gets harder.  Armed with a steely gaze Metreweli speaks fluent human, occasionally with a small smile. She is also the first incumbent of the job to wear a very large costume jewelry beetle brooch on her sombre navy attire. No small amount of attention in Moscow and Beijing could go into decoding that.

BERLIN — U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to restore “European greatness” by bolstering the continent’s nationalist parties is already being put into action. Trump administration officials and European far-right leaders from Paris to Washington have taken part in a flurry of meetings in the days since the release of the U.S. National Security Strategy, underscoring that the U.S. president’s desire to bolster “patriotic European parties” is not an abstract vision but rather a manual for change that is being pursued from the ground up. Last week, U.S. Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers met with far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party politician Markus Frohnmaier in Washington. Frohnmaier said the two discussed the recently released National Security Strategy, which asserted that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to migration and the loss of national identity, a message that AfD politicians embrace. “Washington is looking for a strong German partner who is willing to take on responsibility,” Frohnmaier wrote in an online post following the meeting. “Germany should re-establish itself as a capable leading power through a decisive shift in migration policy and the independent organization of European security.” Frohnmaier was one of about 20 AfD politicians who travelled to Washington and New York last week to meet with sympathizers and Trump administration officials. AfD leaders have increasingly sought to forge links with MAGA Republicans, viewing the Trump administration’s backing as a way to secure domestic legitimacy and end their political ostracization. Frohnmaier, the deputy chair of the AfD’s parliamentary group, was also an “honored guest” at the annual gala of the the New York Young Republican Club on Saturday. The New York City-based group has openly backed the AfD, declaring “AfD über alles” (AfD above all) — an adaptation of a nationalist phrase associated with Germany’s Nazi past. “The alliance between American and German patriots is the nightmare of the liberal elites, and it is the hope of the free world,” Frohnmaier said in a speech during the event. The recent meetings are a continuation of ongoing outreach efforts between Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement and ideologically aligned European parties. British Reform leader Nigel Farage, a longtime Trump ally, stopped off at the Oval Office during a U.S. visit in September. In November Trump political adviser Alex Brusewitz met with AfD leaders in Berlin, where he proclaimed that the MAGA movement in the U.S. had common cause with the German party. AfD leaders have increasingly sought to forge links with MAGA Republicans. | Jan-Philipp Strobel/Getty Images Trump has also long expressed support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, although he told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns in an interview last week for a special edition of “The Conversation” that he had not promised an Argentina-style bailout to boost Orbán’s election chances next year. In Paris, U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner met with French far-right leaders Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella days after the publication of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy. Kushner said he “appreciated the chance” to learn about the far-right leaders’ “economic and social agenda and their views on what lies ahead for France.” As the father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and diplomatic adviser, the elder Kushner has a direct line to the White House. In his POLITICO interview last week Trump said he could move to endorse political candidates aligned with his own vision for Europe. Kushner has also met the heads of at least two other French parties in recent weeks, but a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in France suggested the meetings weren’t part of a coordinated effort to support the far right in Europe: “As a matter of standard practice, the U.S. Mission in France engages regularly with a broad range of political parties and leaders, and we will continue to do so.” Yet unlike Germany’s AfD leaders, Le Pen and Bardella — as well as other politicians in their far-right National Rally — have been reluctant to fully embrace Trump given his unpopularity in France, even among many members of their own party. As for the AfD, its outreach to willing partners in the U.S. is set to continue. Frohnmaier said he would invite U.S. lawmakers to a Berlin congress in February aimed at deepening ties with MAGA Republicans. Pauline von Pezold contributed to this report.